David v. County of Suffolk
Cases that cite this one
52 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Grayson v. Brant Lake Camp, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Beadell v. Eros Mgt. Reality, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- BL Doe 2 v. Fleming (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Visiko v. Fleming (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Chung v. New York City Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Diaz v. Brentwood Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- DWORZANSKI, RONALD v. DWORZANSKI, JUSTIN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Dworzanski v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Peuplie v. Longwood Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Bellinger v. Ballston Spa Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Harper v. Buffalo City Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- J. B. v. Monroe-Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- S.T. v. Island Park Union Free Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- BL Doe 5 v. Fleming (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- BL Doe 4 v. Fleming (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Volkel v. Smithtown Gospel Tabernacle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Knaszak v. Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Williams v. Student Bus Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Deb B. v. Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Palopoli v. Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Ponzini v. Sag Harbor Union Free Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Andrea G. Ex Rel. D.W. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- M v. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Sacino v. Warwick Valley Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Santos v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We agree with Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that defendant Smithtown Central School District demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligent supervision claim. The infant plaintiff was injured in her second-grade gym class while participating in a cargo net climbing exercise. Although we have recognized that “[s]chools are not insurers of safety,” they are obligated to exercise such care of their students “as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994], citing Lawes v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 NY2d 302, 306 [1965]). In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant relied on the deposition testimony of the physical education teacher supervising the class, who explained that he instructed the students on net climbing, demonstrated proper techniques and was 10 to 12 steps away from the infant plaintiff when she fell. The expert affidavit plaintiffs offered in response failed to establish the foundation or the source of the standards underlying the conclusion that defendant’s supervision of the infant plaintiff was inadequate. As such, the affidavit “lacked probative force and was insufficient as a matter of law” to overcome the school district’s motion for summary judgment (Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 545 [2002]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.